Kant argued, or more accurately presumed as a manifestation of practical reason,  that lying is simply wrong – in all circumstances. It is unethical to lie even when to do so might save a life. Lying to the axeman who’s standing at my door asking whether John is the house because he plans to decapitate him, seems reasonable enough, even prudent in the circumstances. But replying “No, he’s not here. I haven’t seen him all day” may be unethical on the basis of unintended consequences (not Kant’s argument but an interesting riposte). The axeman might be so angry at not finding John that he goes after John’s best friend as a result.

It is difficult to follow Kant in maintaining that lying is always unethical yet his admonition reminds us how important an ethical issue lying actually is. In Lying, an intelligent, insightful and stimulating essay, Sam Harris asks us to consider the question:

How would your relationships change if you resolved never to lie again? What truths might suddenly come into view in your life? What kind of person would you become? And how might you change the people around you?

From a definition of lying to a distinction between lying and deception, and a discussion of truth and truthfulness, Harris convincingly argues that our understanding of lying and our propensity to engage in it is a barometer not only of our individual health but also of the health of the society we live in.

Here are some extracts from the book:

 

To lie is to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication.

…

People lie so that others will form beliefs that are not true. The more consequential the beliefs—that is, the more a person’s well-being depends upon a correct understanding of the world—the more consequential the lie.

…

The intent to communicate honestly is the measure of truthfulness.

…

False encouragement is a kind of theft: it steals time, energy, and motivation a person could put toward some other purpose.

…

Vulnerability comes in pretending to be someone you are not

…

lies have led many people to reflexively distrust those in positions of authority. As a consequence, it is now impossible to say anything of substance on climate change, environmental pollution, human nutrition, economic policy, foreign conflicts, pharmaceuticals, and dozens of other subjects without a significant percentage of one’s audience expressing paralyzing doubts about even the most reputable sources of information. Our public discourse appears permanently riven by conspiracy theories.